|
But what of the memory of mental acts: do these also fall
under the imaging faculty?
If every mental act is accompanied by an image we may well
believe that this image, fixed and like a picture of the thought,
would explain how we remember the object of knowledge once
entertained. But if there is no such necessary image, another
solution must be sought. Perhaps memory would be the reception,
into the image-taking faculty, of the Reason-Principle which
accompanies the mental conception: this mental conception- an
indivisible thing, and one that never rises to the exterior of
the consciousness- lies unknown below; the Reason-Principle the
revealer, the bridge between the concept and the image-taking
faculty exhibits the concept as in a mirror; the apprehension by
the image-taking faculty would thus constitute the enduring
presence of the concept, would be our memory of it.
This explains, also, another fact: the soul is unfailingly intent
upon intellection; only when it acts upon this image-taking
faculty does its intellection become a human perception:
intellection is one thing, the perception of an intellection is
another: we are continuously intuitive but we are not unbrokenly
aware: the reason is that the recipient in us receives from both
sides, absorbing not merely intellections but also
sense-perceptions.
|
|